START FROM THE BEGINNING; A STEP BY STEP LEGAL LAW ON "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" LEGAL? OR ILLEGAL?

When you see the words:  LEGAL / ILLEGAL The color GREEN  signifies 'up to this point', you are "legal" to drive private automobile without a driver license. RED signifies "illegal" you must have a driver license to drive commercial.

In 1876 it was called “the power of unrestrained locomotion.” Under "THE RIGHT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY"

PERSONAL LIBERTY — the most sacred of your liberties

The right to travel is so fundamental that it is not mentioned in the Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court commented in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 -758 (1966):

. . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is [394 U.S. 618, 631]   that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”

See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958); and Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964); and Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 14 (1965), 

And here are the definitions of natural liberty and personal liberty existed in the received law-of-the-land:

The lawyers then changed their definition in the 1933 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary — long after the thirteenth amendment — to a definition of liberty that is purportedly guaranteed by the thirteenth amendment. 

The Supreme Court in a 1875 case (Cruikshank, 92 US 542) said: “The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. … The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”

11 Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”3

  "legal" private

That’s right. Police must protect you in your safe conduct as you drive without a license. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

YES, you had a right to unrestrained locomotion to drive down the highway without a license.  Until you waived your right by applying for a license.

State and Federal Governments have their respective Constitutional authorities to regulate commerce.  They were given that authority when “We The People” wrote their constitution to secure the blessings of liberty to their posterity. Governments also have the duty to secure the blessings of liberty.  These two functions of government are compatible with one another.  These two functions of government do not conflict. 

Those persons who are engaged in government authorized activities can be regulated by government. Therefore vehicles that are used in commerce can be required to have license plates. License plates are on vehicles that need government permission to be on the road — to profit from the use of public roads. Once they are regulated in commerce (have a license plate), they never have the right of way.  Pedestrians and bicyclists always have the right of way over licensed vehicles, because their right to travel is a protected liberty.  Whereas commercial uses of the roads are never a protected liberty, they are a government granted privilege.

The Supreme Court keeps saying over, and over again that the right to travel on the public roads cannot be regulated. Ever since Nevada tried to tax people in stage coaches in Crandall v. Nevada 73 US 35.

• The right to travel meant travel by virtually any means available, or at least any ordinary or usual means. See City of Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94 (1904) (citing City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 909 (Ill. 1898)).
• “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts,” stated the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1910, “[yet] they have no exclusive right.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 69-70 (Minnesota 1910).
• Not a single license law excluded any non-merchant from traveling on the roads with wagons, horses, or buggies of any kind. Indeed, courts suggested that no such requirement could be upheld even if it were to exist. See, e.g., Shiver v. Tift, 85 S.E. 1031, 1033 (Georgia. 1915) (citing City of Rome v.Suddeth, 42 S.E. 1032 (Georgia. 1902)) (“[A] person has a right to travel on a highway, and there is no rule of law which prevents him from driving a nervous, high-strung horse.”); City of Covington v. Dalheim, 102 S.W. 829 (Kentucky. 1907).
• When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual’s “right to travel” by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. … Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. … the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.
• the right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867).
• This right to drive was “so well established and so universally recognized in this country,” wrote the court, “that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.” When the City of Chicago enacted an ordinance requiring car drivers to be examined and licensed by a board of examiners, the Illinois Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. The right of a car driver “to use the streets is undoubted,” wrote the court, “subject to [the limitation that he honor the rights of other users,] his right cannot be regulated by an ordinance.” “The fact that an automobile is a comparatively new vehicle is beside the question. The use of the streets must be extended to meet the modern means of locomotion.” The law of free travel was so well-settled that it was recognized in the “constitutional law” entry of American Jurisprudence as recently as 1931: Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. City of Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94 (1904).
• Barely a decade into the twentieth century, American automobile drivers had largely given up the battle for the right to drive without a license. One reason may have been class envy,…  Legal historian Lawrence Friedman pointed out that the automobile was initially a toy for the rich, and, early on, evoked envy and pride. [See Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law in the 20th Century, at 278.] The driver’s license was a status symbol every member of high society desired.
• 
  

"legal" private

DEFINITION OF THE TERM "MOTOR VEHICLE "

This is a term that originated in statutory definitions 100 years ago but in wide usage has become known to mean something else.

Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:

Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled”

The federal definition of Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 31 definitions:

“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…”

“(10) “Used for commercial purposes.” Means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”.

Federal  government defines Motor vehicle as one engaged in commerce. Federal law supersedes or preempts State law. Codes or statutes are not law. Only has force of law. 

Your state will have a similar definition, but it will be hidden, vague or misleading. Government regulation is allowed for the commercial use of the roads.  Regulation is also allowed for “police powers of the State” to control grave and immediate threats to interests the State may lawfully protect. 

Look for the all-important element of “commercial purpose”. This might be hidden in state laws behind the definition of the word carriage, or transport, or traffic. 
If your legislature was relying upon prior court decisions, they might not have mentioned the element of commercial purpose, so you will not find it.  Any other misconstruing of a statute would be a government restriction of liberty, and contrary to the purpose of government.

Hendrick v. Maryland, U.S. Supreme Court 1915. Ever since automobiles used the roads, courts have used the term "vehicle" in terms of commerce regulation. 

BOUVIER’S 1856 LAW DICTIONARY:

LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.